Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Christine Traut who wrote (5334)	4/7/1999 11:21:00 AM
From: O. H. Rundell	Respond to of 9818

He also told me that Clinton was going to declare some sort of school holiday to get more workers. I say that in the category of 'unconfirmed rumor'. First we mobilize the Armed Forces, then we get to the high school and college kids..... Christine, What a hoot. Mobilizing the school children! To do what? Check reports for logical consistency? Right! Maybe sort checks <G>. How about some double-entry bookeeping for the Wall Street firms and the money center banks? Guess we should remember that the President can conscript labor as he sees fit per executive order. I think I'm going from a "7.5" to an "8". Are these supposed to be the "calming messages" that Janet Abrams was callin for? Helpful hints from the press? Thanks, O. H.

To: Christine Traut who wrote (5334)	4/7/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Respond to of 9818

"Vendor Will Not Test" is gaining momentum as the status of choice among software and hardware manufacturers pressured to bring current and older products into the fold of Y2K compliance by year-end. According to the most recently released Compliance Tracker(TM) Delta Report, published by Infoliant, leading trackers of Y2K readiness information, nearly 600 changes in Y2K compliance were reported in March alone. More than one-third of these were "negative changes," that is, a shift from compliant status to ... "Not Compliant," "Action Required," "Pending Evaluation" or "Vendor Will Not Test." infoseek.go.com+glitch+y2k&sv=IS&lk=noframes&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news1486

To: Christine Traut who wrote (5334)	4/12/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: Christine Traut	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

I finally finished that 'Microsoft and Y2K' white paper. Here are some overall conclusions for your enjoyment. 1) Microsoft is not going to get all of its mainstream products up to 'Y2K compliance'. And remember, Y2K compliance to Microsoft probably still needs a patch. 2) Some major corporate products, like NT 4.0 Server, are still in serious flux. There is a small possibility that they will not be ready at all, and a large possibility that they won't be ready in time for large companies to install them. So we will be running the enterprise on a bunch of patched up stuff. 3) Microsoft had to do an about face on Windows 95, because companies got really riled when ComputerWorld reported that they weren't going to make it Y2K compliant. I have reason to believe that they are going to fix it by 'windowing', arbitrarily assigning two digit years to a century. This strikes me as a pretty dangerous way to fix an operating system. 4) Microsoft is starting a FUD campaign on Y2K! (did anyone see Bill Gate's Venezuela quote today?) They are going to try to make Y2K into just another bug and see if they can get everyone to calm down. You know, their stuff is junk anyway, what's a few more bugs, a little more instability. Gee, it's worth a try. Much better than admitting the massive design flaw of not seeing the year 2000 coming in, oh, 1998! On the other hand, it puts Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) in a nasty situation. They've got Y2K issues also. And it's really bad for the IT leaders in large enterprises. The poor geeks who are responsible for keeping things running. Think Microsoft might come out of this with just a little ill will?